PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LOLITA CASOLOCAN Y MANAYAGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Casolocan

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Lolita Casolocan y Manayaga, a criminal appeal from a conviction for the illegal sale of a regulated drug. The accused was charged with selling methylamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, to a police officer acting as a poseur buyer in a buy-bust operation. The case matters to the reviewee because it gathers in one decision the working rules on buy-bust prosecutions: the presumption of regularity that shields police witnesses, the dispensability of the informant's testimony, the irrelevance of the seller's failure to check the buyer's credentials, and the correct range of the fine under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

Procedural History

The accused was arraigned before Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila and pleaded not guilty. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its decision on August 9, 2002, finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling 958.2 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride without authority of law, penalized under Section 15 in relation to Section 20 of Republic Act Number 6425, as amended. It sentenced her to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of 5,000,000 pesos, plus the costs.

From that judgment the accused lodged an appeal, assigning a lone error: that the trial court gravely erred in finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt upon the incredible and fabricated evidence of the prosecution, represented by a star witness whom she described as a glib police woman. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which decided it on July 13, 2004.

Facts

On the morning of September 11, 2001, the Caloocan City police received a tip from an informant known as Boy Grande that a certain Lolit, who turned out to be the accused, had authorized him to look for a buyer of a large quantity of shabu. Chief Inspector Leonardo Suan organized a buy-bust team, designating Inspector Jean Fajardo as poseur buyer and SPO1 Noel Almerino as her back-up. The team proceeded to Hotel La Corona in Ermita, Manila, where Fajardo, Almerino, and Grande checked in at Room 214 as an advance command post. At Café Corona, Grande introduced Fajardo to the accused as the buyer he had mentioned. The accused asked how much Fajardo would get, and Fajardo replied that for a good price she would buy one kilo. The accused said she could produce the quantity if Fajardo could wait another day, and they agreed to meet the following day.

On September 12, 2001, Fajardo and Almerino checked in at Room 302, with Almerino hiding in a closet. At two o'clock in the afternoon the accused arrived carrying a blue SM plastic bag and approached Fajardo at the lobby. Asked if she had brought the order, the accused nodded and asked if Fajardo had the money. They went up to Room 302, where the accused handed over the bag containing a brown box, inside which Fajardo found a knot-tied transparent plastic bag wrapped in newspaper. Finding the contents to be shabu, Fajardo handed the accused a bundle of boodle money with two genuine five hundred peso bills at either end. Fajardo then knocked on the closet door as the pre-arranged signal, and Almerino emerged. Fajardo told the accused not to make a scene because she was a police officer, apprised her of her constitutional rights, and arrested her. The forensic chemist later confirmed that the crystalline granules, with a total weight of 958.2 grams, were positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

In her defense, the accused claimed she was a domestic helper of a certain Sammy Yong and did not know that what she delivered was shabu. She testified that her employer directed her by telephone to get an SM bag and a basket of things from Manila Fortune Hotel, that somebody instructed her to get the key under the door, and that she retrieved the bag without knowing its contents. She said her employer then instructed her to deliver the bag to Room 302 of Hotel La Corona. The trial court rejected her story in light of the contradictions that punctuated her testimony, and convicted her.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in relying on the testimony of the poseur buyer and the other police witnesses in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the failure of the informant Grande to take the witness stand deprived the accused of the opportunity to cross-examine him and weakened the prosecution's case.
• Whether or not the accused's claim that she merely followed her employer's instruction, without knowledge of the contents of the bag, deserves credence.
• Whether or not the penalty and the fine imposed by the trial court were correct.

Applicable Provisions

Section 15, Article III of Republic Act Number 6425, as amended, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, provides:

Section 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug.

This is the provision under which the accused was charged and convicted, and it fixes both the imprisonment and the range of the fine.

Section 20, Article IV of the same law provides:

Section 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following quantities: x x x 5. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride; x x x

This provision supplies the quantity threshold that raises the offense to the higher penalty, and the Court applied it because the shabu involved weighed 958.2 grams.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that prosecutions arising from buy-bust operations largely depend on the credibility of the police officers who conducted them. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by an improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit. The defense ascribed no malicious motive to Fajardo and Almerino, who had not known the accused before the operation, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stood. The Court also rejected the argument that it was unlikely for the accused to transact immediately with a stranger, holding that peddlers of illicit drugs offer and sell their wares for the right price to anybody, and that the success of a buy-bust operation depends on the concealed identity of the poseur buyer. In any event, Fajardo was accompanied by the informant Grande, who was known to the accused and who introduced them.

On the second issue, the Court held that the informant's testimony is not essential for conviction. Informers are almost always never presented in court to preserve their cover so they can continue their invaluable service to the police. Except where the accused vehemently denies selling any prohibited drug coupled with inconsistent testimonies of the arresting officers, or where there is reason to believe the arresting officer had motives to testify falsely, or where only the informant-poseur-buyer witnessed the entire transaction, the informant's testimony would merely be corroborative and cumulative. What is crucial is that the accused was caught red-handed in the act of trafficking illegal drugs.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the trial court's rejection of the accused's defense. Her tale was unusual and strange and did not conform to common knowledge and experience, and evidence to be worthy of credit must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself. Her testimony was riddled with contradictions on matters within her easy recollection, such as whether she was a housemaid or a waitress and where she resided, and with vague and evasive answers. She also failed to explain what motivated her employer to set her up for an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, if not death.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that under Section 15 in relation to Section 20 of Republic Act Number 6425, as amended, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from 500,000 pesos to 10,000,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person caught selling, delivering, or transporting 200 grams or more of shabu. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the trial court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua, but the fine of 5,000,000 pesos should be reduced to 500,000 pesos in line with jurisprudence.

Doctrine

First, in buy-bust prosecutions, the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the operation deserve full faith and credit absent clear and convincing evidence of improper motive or failure to perform their duty, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty applies. Second, the testimony of the informant is not indispensable to conviction because it would merely be corroborative and cumulative; what is crucial is that the accused was caught red-handed in the act of trafficking illegal drugs. Third, the fact that the poseur buyer was a stranger to the seller does not weaken the case, since drug peddlers sell to anybody for the right price. Fourth, under Section 15 in relation to Section 20 of Republic Act Number 6425, as amended, selling 200 grams or more of shabu carries reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from 500,000 pesos to 10,000,000 pesos, and absent modifying circumstances the penalty is reclusion perpetua.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, with the modification that the fine was reduced to 500,000 pesos.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that what is crucial in a buy-bust case is that the accused was caught red-handed in the act of trafficking illegal drugs, so the informant need not be presented and the police testimony stands absent proof of improper motive. Examiners like to use this case on the credibility of police witnesses in buy-bust operations, the dispensability of the informant's testimony, and the correct range of the fine for selling 200 grams or more of shabu.